As long as the movie is good I don’t care who made it. The industry also shouldn’t. This goes both ways: good nonbinary filmmakers should get to make movies, bad nonbinary filmmakers shouldn’t make movies just because they’re nonbinary.
That’s never been the case though. It’s all about connections. You could have the greatest script ever, but if you don’t know the right people with money it’s not getting made.
Until recently Hollywood has very much been an old white guy’s party. Old white guys tend not to be very accepting of others.
So, as an old white guy, I will say: this doesn’t bother me.
It’s so funny how my comment was removed as transphobic, when I am advocating for meritocracy and away from gender discrimination. Am assuming you are more in the right than not. Connections always meant everything in the business world. Still I’d prefer if movies were made based on skill and quality… not how directors identify. But then again, it’s transphobic it seems.
Hmm I agree, I didn’t read it as transphobic at all. I agree that movies should be produced on the merit of the script alone, but the fact is that they haven’t been in the past. Hopefully one day programs like these won’t be necessary.
Doubt they will have meaningful impact. All that said, drop a look at A24 pictures. They have give complete creative rights to the directors. Sometimes this results in awesome movies, sometimes in flops, but at least they are approaching this from an artistic point of view and not just like another investment.
Oh yeah I love A24. As much as a Marvel nerd as I am, the best movies don’t come from Hollywood these days.
(Not interested in talking about Marvel in this thread though, just using them as an example of a thing I do like from Hollywood. I’m aware they’ve been shitting the bed on a few projects the past few years but I like it anyway)
Im one of the supposedly negative ones - think im about 150 down in comment karma at this point.
What worries me is the push toward inclusion at the expense of everything and everyone else, and that and discussions and calls to stop and think are met with insults, accusations, and apparently I’m just wanting to swing my giant dick around. I wish I had a giant dick to swing around.
We as a society have never had to try integrate a group that presents concerns that actually affect other people. Black people in the states were just black people, religion has different views but are within their rights to do as they wish and practice without interfere from others. Where does a trans persons rights to how they see themselves compare to how others see them and their rights? We have mums calling out trans people who call themselves mums, students wanting to compete where they have advantages over nok trans students because of who they see themselves as, and let’s not even go into the bathroom debate. Do we need to fire people who worked hard to have the right ratios in an industry, and do we hire based on sexual orientation and race to be more inclusive - and is this morally right? Is it morally right to expect 50% of woman board members, and only 0.2% of kindergarten teachers male?
All people have rights, concerns and should have autonomy in themselves. But this can’t come at the expense of others and openly discussing these concerns, developing ideas, strategies and understanding are how we work through it without generating resentment and anger - but these are not easy or pleasant discussions.
We as a society have never had to try integrate a group that presents concerns that actually affect other people. Black people in the states were just black people,
You couldn’t have shown your lack of knowledge of history more perfectly if you tried. Have you ever heard of the term segregation?
Instead of making a long list of every non cis-male group
To be clear, the “long list” you’re referring to contains three entries.
Do you actually have trouble juggling that much information at once or are you just upset because you think providing help and opportunities to someone other than a cis-het man is somehow oppressing you? Be honest.
LGBT contains 4, cis woman is a 5th, and is not the entirety of the list.
Why do you have to be offended by everything that doesn’t align with your exact view of the world. I’m going to assume you aren’t a cis male based on your responses here, and if you are that exact attitude is where these discriminate views come from.
Edit: and would rather keep the closet view than open discussion. Not blocked because I believe these discussions need to be had.
Why do you have to be offended by everything that doesn’t align with your exact view of the world. I’m going to assume you aren’t a cis male based on your responses here, and if you are that exact attitude is where these discriminate views come from.
Alright, I’ve read enough of your inane yammering for one lifetime. Blocked.
Who said they’re offended? You were “offended” enough to make the initial comment, they just replied to counter your bad arguments.
And empowering people doesn’t mean discrimination. Especially if the people being empowered are at a disadvantage. Your comment reeks of bigoted dog whistles
I didn’t post the original comment. And they were offended enough to start questioning the intelligence of someone asking a question that honestly, sounds like a good point - its targeting everyone but straight males. Let alone i have no idea where they got groups from.
I will be honest, don’t know where you got empowerment from.
It’s not taking away from, oppressing, or discriminating against cis men to empower the other genders and to say that it is is cause to question a person’s intelligence. You got your empowerment by beating down everyone that wasn’t a big, swinging dick like you, it’s time to let others have some stake in the world
If I had a big, swinging dick I’d be posting on onlyfans instead of lemmy.
Original poster never mentioned that it was taking away from cis men, only wouldn’t it be an easier thing to say - let’s be honest, no one is trying to bring down boards with low white male members, or bring out policies that further their interest… except for the likes of white power and KKK, but they aren’t exactly beacons of equality.
LMFAO no one said you had a big swinging dick, I said you are one. Because all you care about is what cis, white men are getting out of the deal. Y’all have been on top of the world for fucking ever, white men literally rule the world, time to let the other genders be seen.
Ah thank you for the correction. However they were not questioning the intelligence, they were questioning the morals of the comment op, as shown by their use of “actually”
Another correction, sexuality has nothing to do with the article. It’s specifically women, trans, and nonbinary people. Which is not targeting everyone except straight males.
What is targeting straight males is the hiring departments in Hollywood. If you read the article, it said less than 6% of directors are women. That’s messed up. A third of speaking roles are women, trans, or nb. They are underrepresented by a long shot.
Empowering is what the goal of this all is. It’s in the title.
I read different into their use of actually, but this is a peril of internet text based discussions.
Make no mistake, I fully agree that Hollywood is sexist and racist. My issue is how quick we swing from “its not ok to hire based on race and gender” to “let’s focus on hiring and development based on race and gender”. Did one group get better off in the past - absolutely. But where is the line of it being acceptable to be racist and sexist - is it never ok or is it what society is ok with, putting us right back 30 years ago?
“We’re missing an enormous creative opportunity by not diversifying. We deplore creative laziness, we deplore financial laziness, and so we should therefore deplore a lack of inclusivity,” she said of the industry. “Homogeneity in any industry is the death of progress and innovation. That’s certainly the case for the creative industries. When you walk onto a set that is homogenous, you can sort of taste the outcome. The things that break through that are fresh, that have influence for the next decade, always start because someone took a risk on them.”
The other perspective of this is those rich white men got that way by making something that wanted to be seen. If the demand existed for alternate perspectives those movies would be what Hollywood was, instead of small indie productions.
…maybe? But considering how insular and closed-minded American culture is, I highly disagree. These are highly conservative companies only going for the safe money.
I mean, how else do you want it explained? It’s spelled out in the article why it’s the same type of problem.
As for homogeneity, that didn’t stop the Wachowski sisters from a poorly made rehashed cash grab of a Matrix movie.
Yes, and they’re in a very unique situation, and importantly, were famous before they came out. Good luck doing it the other way around. Hence Ms Blanchett doing this, it’s about giving equal chances.
And an effective way to assure good films continue to be made is to encourage diverse perspectives in the industry. Which is what this program aims to achieve. So, if all you care about is whether or not a film is good then what exactly is your problem with an initiative meant to develop new talent? Please be specific.
Effectively, why does the talent search need to targets a small section of society? If these people have a great idea, it should be brought to light on its own merits like all other ideas.
If there is a stigma associated within the industry that needs to be broken - different story. But don’t make a film just because of how the director or producer identifies.
The issue is that this is a push for inclusivitiy for the sake of a push for inclusivitity - trying to create a demand where none or little currently exists.
Maybe creative workplaces should be diverse and inclusive on principle and not because we can only do things that improve sales.
In an ideal world, yes. Practically speaking effective groups grow and develop based on shared goals and values. You can’t just put a LGBT person in a group for the sake of putting one there, especially if it costs a better performing person their job. Would you walk away from you job to give it to a non straight person, and how would the team feel knowing that how you identify is more important than what you can do? How about being handed over crap by a person and you can say or do nothing about it because they were hired on inclusivity principles and any issues with their work are just called bigotry and seismic?
If you hire based on inclusion, that is why that person is there.
Hiring entirely cis male teams to work on projects doesn’t result in a better product. It is a fallacy to act like there’s something about being a cis man that makes them better at the job than any woman or trans worker at a similar skill level. And there are women and trans people at a similar skill level you can hire, no matter what the job is. It’s completely ridiculous to act like women and trans people are somehow able to perform at a lower level than cis men and keep their jobs/keep getting hired. It’s more like the opposite, women and trans people have to work twice as hard to be viewed as competent.
Frankly this all sounds like situations you are imagining and not how anything actually plays out in a workplace IRL, much less a creative workplace. With movie and show production it’s totally normal for people to have to sit and listen to criticisms and suggested changes to their work at least a couple of times a week, if not daily, because of the way production schedules work and how quickly things need to be revised. Anyone who started hollering racism over that would be blacklisted.
That’s ok, you don’t have to reply. I am hoping, however to get a response from the only person responding in this thread who is disagreeing without resorting to insults.
I find it kinda like the covid vaccine - vaccines don’t cause autism, are considerably safer than not having them, but you still need to take a step back to assess before you dive right into it.
First point - if your entire team are cis white males your hiring manager or recruiter should be fired as (unless 95% of surround pop are cis white male) they are already hiring based on race and gender, or not casting a wide net to identify the best applicants. Nearly 50% of my team were born overseas and not a single one was hired based on race or identity.
I suppose my argument boils down to one key question - is it acceptable to hire someone based on sexual orientation/ identity or race… likewise should this be a part of the advertising and hiring process.
They know what they want to pay for and its the job of an industry to provide this.
As someone working in IT, this could not be more wrong.
Don’t promote an idea because of who made it, promote the idea because its a great idea.
Welcome to movies and filmmaking. You might not have experienced any of it yet and not seen movies or movie-fans yet in your life, but take some notes when you do, they sadly won’t at all align with your idealistic ideas how it ought to work.
I fully agree, so why don’t we target that. Pushing select groups opens the divide between different parts of society rather than considering us as one.
opens the divide between different parts of society
If you or others feel “divided” because of this that’s your problem. Normal people who have empathy see this and feel happy for the marginalized groups it will benefit.
Target it how? Tell people in the industry to please be nice to people they don’t like based on how they present?
Humans have biases, those small groups will inherently be the subject of bias. This is the most effective way to counter those biases, especially because having those people’s voices heard will help combat those biases.
The thing I hear the most from people who used to be transphobic, homophobic, etc. is that they got over it when they were exposed to a person of that identity. This would make that more of a possibility
I have a feeling there won’t be a lot of intellectual diversity or perspectives, but I also don’t give a shit what people do with their money. Let people try whatever they think will work for either their goals or their wallet. Win or lose, everything we try is data.
Add comment